netdev - Re: [GIT PULL] Add support for epoll min wait time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221210161714.GA22696@1wt.eu>
Date:   Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:17:14 +0100
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Add support for epoll min wait time

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 09:05:02AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/10/22 8:58?AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> > 
> > On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 08:36:11AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> Hi Linus,
> >>
> >> I've had this done for months and posted a few times, but little
> >> attention has been received.
> > 
> > I personally think this is particularly cool, for having faced the
> > same needs in the past. I'm just wondering how long we'll avoid the
> > need for marking certain FDs as urgent (i.e. for inter-thread wakeup)
> > which would bypass the min delay.
> 
> Thanks! No opinion on urgent fds, it's not something I have looked
> into...

We'll see over time anyway :-)

> > This last patch fixes a bug introduced by the 5th one. Why not squash it
> > instead of purposely introducing a bug then its fix ? Or maybe it was
> > just overlooked when you sent the PR ?
> 
> I didn't want to rebase it, so I just put the fix at the end. Not that
> important imho, only issue there was an ltp case getting a wrong error
> value. Hence didn't deem it important enough to warrant a rebase.

OK. I tend to prefer making sure that a bisect session can never end up
in the middle of a patch set for a reason other than a yet-undiscovered
bug, that's why I was asking.

Thanks,
Willy